The problem is that they don’t want to have to read ten thousand indignant emails, so they hid that as well as they could. The title (“State polls show gathering storm“) is nicely non-specific, the only actual politician quoted is a Republican, and then there’s this paragraph:
The dismal polling doesn’t reveal much about which political party will pay the price in November. And it’s hard to pinpoint how voters will react, since places like California, Connecticut and Rhode Island currently have Republican governors and Democratic legislatures. In Pennsylvania, the governor is a Democrat while control of the legislature is divided between the two major parties.
That was the paragraph that made me decide to go look up the state legislatures on Wikipedia, in fact. And, lo! Of the seven states mentioned in the article:
…the Democrats control all of the state houses/assemblies, and all but one of the state senates. Often by a lot. And while gubernatorial races will certainly have an effect on state legislature ones this fall, it remains that anti-incumbent sentiment will tend to hurt more the party in power. Particularly when the party in power favors the policies that are generating the anti-incumbent sentiment. To give just one example: we’re not seeing a mass movement out there calling for more governmental interference in the health care system – and believe me, the Left has been trying to generate one. While a Republican candidate or office holder may or may not be able to tap into the mass movement that is calling for less interference, it’s not precisely easy for a Democratic candidate to do so… and not very likely at all for a Democratic incumbent.
But, again: if the Politico actually wrote all of that out they’d get a ridiculous amount of hate mail. So they didn’t.
PS: If that’s not enough to make you vote a party-line ticket in November, consider this: redistricting will be coming up, soon. Some of these legislatures are looking forward to the opportunity to eliminate troublesome Republican Congressional Districts. Hard to do that if they don’t control the legislatures…
The House’s third-ranking Democrat said Sunday that he can support a healthcare reform bill without a public option.
House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) — a proponent of a government-run public plan — said that he could back the bill as long as it creates more choice and competition in the insurance industry and reduces costs. “It’s of no consequence” whether it’s done via the public option or not.
(H/T: Hot Air Headlines) Translation: House Democrats are going to abandon the public option. Ignore the nonsense about more choice and reduced costs: that’s for the rubes and the netroots. They went with the #3 House Democrat to make the announcement because both Pelosi and Hoyer want to appear to be reluctantly going along with this, instead of enthusiastically: if the endgame ends up reminding you of their FISA ‘capitulation,’ well, there’s a reason for that. Anyway, this is probably back on track for being settled by the State of the Union address. In fact, they’re probably right now working out how many liberal House members can vote ‘no’ on the bill and still get it to pass.
I’d be offended at the Democratic leadership’s upcoming betrayal of their own (loudly stated) principles, if only I believed that they had them in the first place. As I didn’t and don’t, the best that I can muster is a slightly cynical moue of distaste. And that’s only because I’ve never gotten to use the word ‘moue’ in a post before.
PS: The final language on federal funding on abortion will be at whatever point between Stupak’s and the Senate’s version that will cause the NRLC to stop threatening to score the final vote. If that call hasn’t been made yet, it will be.
While its electoral history allows it some pretense to claiming a democratic system of government, its current one-party regime has resulted in crumbling infrastructures and drastic budget shortfalls. Its supposedly high-minded ruling caste keeps getting embroiled in scandal after scandal, ranging from ordinary corruption to substance abuse; their highest figures are especially notorious about violating their own (loudly-proclaimed) religious principles when it suits them. When faced with an increasingly-popular and populist movement drawing on a glorious revolutionary past, the regime seems alternatively derisive and frightened – but cannot seem to find an answer past the standard nonsense that everything is all right, despite the evidence of one’s eyes. And ruling above all is an already deeply unpopular leader whose own lackeys privately worry about how he can win a legitimate election.
John Edwards admits federal investigators are asking him questions. Federal subpoenas were issued Friday related to Mike Easley.
As the separate federal probes into a former senator and the former governor are emerging, Democrats are taking steps to replace the Republican prosecutor who is spearheading the inquiries about the highest-profile North Carolina Democrats of the past decade.
All the nearly 100 top federal prosecutors across the country serve at the will of the president. Any replacement for U.S. Attorney George E.B. Holding, a Bush appointee who has kept a priority on public corruption cases from Raleigh to the coast, will be subject to U.S. Senate confirmation.
The process gives a key role in the decision to U.S. Sen. Kay Hagan, a Democrat who was in the state Senate leadership for several years until she unseated Republican Sen. Elizabeth Dole in November. Already, Hagan has formed a panel to screen candidates. It is led by Burley Mitchell, former chief justice of the N.C. Supreme Court who now works at the Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice law firm.
They’re claiming that this screening process is ‘coincidental’ to the investigations, of course.
(Via Instapundit) Now that Kaus can actually read the debt bill that the Democrats just passed – a courtesy delayed to everybody who wasn’t a lobbyist – he’s kind of alarmed that his political party has decided to cater to its base by bringing back rules that encourage the formation of a permanent underclass. His major practical objection:
3) But the reference to liberalism isn’t irrelevant, because the now-undermined welfare reform was the key to rebuilding confidence in (liberal) affirmative government. As Bill Clinton recognized, voters may well have been willing to let government spend, but they didn’t trust old style liberals not to spend in actively destructive ways, like subsidizing an isolated underclass of non-working single mothers with a no-strings cash dole. It’s a 75-25 values issue. Work yes. Welfare no. Even if welfare spending was only a tiny portion of the liberals’ spending agenda, it poisoned the rest of it. Only when Clinton’s New Democrats put an ostentatious “time limit” on welfare and required work did they regain the public confidence necessary to increase other kinds of spending (on work-related poverty-fighting benefits like the Earned Income Tax Credit, day care and Social Security, for example.)
A reemerging “welfare” issue is a potential killer, in other words, for Obama’s big remaining plans, especially health care. If Dems seem determined to reinstate dependency–or at the least blind to the dangers of dependency–voters aren’t going to trust them to spend trillions on universal health insurance and fortified pensions. It’s hard to believe Obama doesn’t realize this. Continue reading Mickey, you almost seem *surprised* that Obama gutted welfare reform.
How’s that Libertarians for Obama thing working out for people? I’ve already seen how it worked out for all those poor Republicans for Obama…
Before we go any further, let me just note that my sympathies for the people in the video below is currently somewhere between “nil” and “whatever.” This is a blue-on-blue fight, as far as I’m concerned: Wall Street actually has a habit of going against its class interests by funding and supporting Democrats, and God knows that they had their hand in the current banking crisis, so I can root for injuries with a light heart and a clear conscience.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is receptive to the idea of prosecuting some Bush administration officials, while letting others who are accused of misdeeds leave office without prosecution, she told Chris Wallace in an interview on “FOX News Sunday.”
“I think you look at each item and see what is a violation of the law and do we even have a right to ignore it,” the California Democrat said. “And other things that are maybe time that is spent better looking to the future rather than to the past.”